I am the Founder of Community of Liberty, a chapter based organization committed to pursuing the art of living in liberty, a member of the Publication Committee of the Claremont Review of Books, an Advisor to TheGold StandardNow.org, and a juror for the Bastiat Prize for Journalism. I have just published with my co-author Ralph Benko the booklet, "The 21st Century Gold Standard: For Prosperity, Security and Liberty," now available as a free download at AGoldenAge.com. I bring to my columns an extensive background in the investment management business, including my experience as an equity portfolio manager, strategist, president of my former firm’s retail sales and marketing subsidiary and member of the parent firm’s management committee. As such, I have been a student and observer of the political/economy and its affects on markets, businesses, and my own business for more than 30 years.

The Audacity of Power: President Obama Vs. The Catholic Church

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.” Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

In one of the boldest, most audacious moves ever made by a President of the United States, President Barack Obama is on the brink of successfully rendering moot the very first clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added). If he forces the Catholic Church to comply with the Health and Human Services ruling to provide its employees with insurance that covers activities the Church has long held sinful — abortion via the morning after pill, sterilization and contraceptives — then the precedent is clear: when religious beliefs conflict with government decrees, religion must yield.

The story line that President Obama miscalculated in picking this fight with the Catholic Church vastly underestimates the man’s political skill and ambition. His initial approval of the ruling requiring the Church pay for abortion drugs and sterilization was but the first step in a calculated strategy to further his goal of transforming America.

President Obama chose to pick this fight with the Catholic Church by choosing to release the regulations first, and then, as he explained in last Friday’s statement to the press, spend “the next year (before the new regulations take effect) to find an equitable solution that would protect religious liberty and insure that every woman has access to the care that she needs.” The alternative would have been to find the “equitable solution” before announcing the regulations. In other words, this entire political fire storm is a set-up by the Administration.

The original HHS ruling put the Catholic Church into the position of choosing one of these two options:

Option A: The Church complies with the law and violates its own teachings and principles of faith. Such a choice would strip the Church of its legitimacy and make it a de facto vassal of the state. In this case, the ability of the Church to challenge the government’s political power is vastly reduced, if not completely destroyed. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.

Option B: The Church as a matter of conscience refuses to obey the law, and stops offering health insurance to its employees. In this case, the Church gets crushed by hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. As a consequence, its ability to fulfill its religious mission by funding hospitals, schools and charities is sharply reduced if not destroyed. As the Church is forced to withdraw from its active role in civil society, those who believe in government will rush to fill the void. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.

The risk to President Obama was the Church would create “Option C” and engage in a broad political battle to force the full repeal of the ruling or, if that fails, the defeat of President Obama in the November election followed by the repeal of ObamaCare. Under Option C, government’s power is reduced. Faith, charity and civil society win.

President Obama’s political skill is demonstrated by his anticipation and preparation for just this outcome. First, he has used the issue to energize his political base by positioning his Administration as the defender of “women’s health” and attacking his opponents for taking him up on his implicit dare to make it an issue in the Presidential campaign.

Second, last Friday’s decision to “retreat,” as proclaimed by the weekend Wall Street Journal’s page 1 headline and find a way to “accommodate” religious freedom, was pure subterfuge. The notion of retreat or compromise is pure spin. The President’s operative statement reflected zero tolerance for those that would disagree with his policies.

He announced: (the imperial) “we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work. So that core principle remains (emphasis added). But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

Got that? The insurance company will be required to offer the service, but will be forbidden from explicitly billing the Catholic organization for providing this benefit. Such a construct is a fraud. Of course the employer will have to pay for these benefits. And, even if they didn’t, the Church is still being forced to support what it believes are sinful acts. This “equitable solution” is simply an attempt to soften the blow of forcing the Catholic Church to accommodate the dictates of the now supreme federal government. It’s a face saving version of Option A.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

You are mistaken. Please do some research on the abortifacient properties of the birth control pill. Combine that with the understanding that life begins at conception and yes, birth control does destroy life. Also, more birth control = more birth control failure = more abortions. Planned Parenthood has this fact well documented and it’s their bread and butter.

It is highly irresponsible from the administration to portray a very complex decision (abortion using poison pills) as simple, because the federal government sanctioned this form of killing in Obama Care. Taking the life of another should be severely restricted by law, instead of encouraged by government freebies. It is well documented by psychiatric medical doctors, that for some women aborting their fetus can create devastating, life-long psychological conditions. A dentist, before removing your acing wisdom teeth, has to inform you about its negative effects. Undeniably, the psychological effect of loosing a tooth is less then loosing a baby. It is irresponsible for the government to downplay the severity of an abortion by taking the decision out of the hands of the individual who believes the government recommendation, which in this case is expressed by the free, government mandated contraceptive give-away. The government does not have to explicitly say that it recommends for the woman to terminate the life of her own baby. Due to the government’s perceived authority, a free morning-after pill mandated by the government is an effective recommendation. A church abiding by this free contraceptive rule, also puts its institutional weight behind this law in approval. But for the Catholic church that is in contradiction with its religious believes. By the Obama Care mandate the government attempts to trump the church on an issue that falls under the authority of the church. That is a violation of the United States Constitution.

I think the part that you are missing here is that no one is denying anyone access to birth control throught their objection to this bill. The catholic church simply is refusing to pay for it. That does not mean that you cannot still go out and purchase it yourself which is your individual right to do so…

Your arguement that government (or your employer) should pay for your birth control because you cannot afford it (something that is strictly a personal responsibility) is as shallow and self serving as an arguement that the government should buy me a car becuase it will make it cheaper and easier for me to drive my kids to the doctor…

If the arm of the Church that actually *runs* the hospitals (as opposed to the Bishops, who don’t) is okay with the compromise, where’s the religious liberty implication? The Bishops won’t pay a dime to help contraception. The money and accounting are in two different organizations. Their religious freedom isn’t implicated at all.

Remember that we are endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life.

The original 13 States founded the United States of America by USC The Declaration of Independence – 1776, preserving this right. By enabling acts, all States have mutually required the principles of the Declaration of Independence for equal footing in the Union. See 48 USC 2 and 3 for Alaska and Hawaii.

For the government to require citizens to pay for the destruction of the life of the unborn directly breaches this foundational unalienable right. This directly destroys our standing to appeal “to the Supreme Judge of all the world for the rectitude of our intentions.”

What 28 individual States do is a stawman argument, just like mandating auto insurance or Romneycare, the individual States have police powers reserved to them (or the people) by the 10th adm. – this is the Federal government encroaching. If your point is that the Bishops are hypocritical by not having an organized opposition on these 28 affronts to their theological beliefs – well some people come to the party late, although their lack of moral courage then does not diminish their opposition now. Just like Code Pink – they were on the MSM 24/7 when Bush was President, Libya & the Afghanistan surge, not a peep. Obama, Hillary Clinton & Joe Biden all made public outcries against Bush, even calling for impeachment; but Obama’s actions are morally justified? There’s enough hypocrisy to go around.

In response… 1.) The U.S. Constitution, First Amendment say that “Congress shall make no law…” then later in the Tenth Amendment all other powers are granted to the States and the People. Just because a State can do something does not mean that the Federal Government can.

2.) So what you are arguing is that if someone or some organization accepts the limitation on their rights then it’s okay to trample those rights. Thank God the courts don’t see it that way…yet.

The Catholic Health Association does not speak for the bishops. CHA and Sr. Keehan were informed of the accomodation before the bishops were notified and responded. In the matter of Church faith and morals the CHA and Sr. Keehan do not speak for the Church.

FYI: the CHA does not speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. ThesUSCCB (US Bishops) are not thrilled with the comments and support given by the CHA.

The Church has also not complied. Nor will it comply in the future. visit www.lifesitenews.com to view what the Church believes and what the Churches and Bishops all over the country are doing right now to stop Obama.

This is also not just a “Catholic” issue. Christian churches throughout America are prepared to close rather than fall to Obama’s feet.

Obama has awoken a sleeping giant, and the religious people will not back down.